Do no harm

The Wiccan precept of 'Do no harm' is actually one of the first things that caught my eye about this belief system. There's a great deal of merit in this alone. I get the impression that this core belief is why so many Wiccans are peaceful and appear to live a life based on respect to nature and all living things. This is fabulous to me.

On the other hand practically speaking war and violence are a reality in the world so I do not know how Wiccan beliefs deal with this in anything other than a defensive manner. I have read that there are some Wiccans that take this as far as not believeing they should draw their own blood for rituals but do not believe this stops them having surgery for example or giving blood to help others. I don't know. Could you enlighten me on this subject?

An example I was discussing today was that if I had the ability to stop a person who I knew was going to harm someone such as a rapist, murderer or paedophile, if I lived by the Wiccan Rede would I be permitted to harm the person in order to prevent others being harmed? In this example I would not be able to just bind the person or incapacitate the monster. I would have the choice to either leave the monster alone or do harm to him/her. What would the position of a Wiccan in these circumstances?

I believe "An' It Harm None" is a Rede that Wiccans abide by, but many Pagan's don't: I believe that (as you put it) someone was going to hurt someone else and I had the power to stop them, I wouldn't even hesitate: Karma would be worth it...

Well, this is always a question that comes with every religion. I remember the indepth philosophy i did fro my RE gcse about Christanity. I take as it deliberate harm against other....setting out with a premeditated thought of harm against someone, if that makes sense. Self-defence is acceptable as is the fight for others when they can't. But its drawing the line thats the trouble i think.

Not that i disagree with all of you i think you have the right idea and it is defintley the thoughts that i normally subscribe to but there are always litle holes in peoples theories and i hae been trained to pick at them so sorry...

Intent is a great idea but unfortunatley it relies on peoples ideas on good and evil, which are entirley subjective. Some people say we have inate ideas of good and evil others that our enviroment moulds our ideas on it. I dont know which one of these is true and doubt i ever will but it does cause the first problem in this theory.

1. A person intends to do good, however thier idea of good is not what most would classify as goodness. This fits with the idea of most fanatics, i know it takes it to the extreme but these people belive what they are doing is good (im talking about suicide bombers e.t.c.) Because what they believe hey are doing is good they are only intending good things too happen. The majority of the population would see what they do as evil and the harm they cause from it evil. They dont. I'm not sure im getting my point across very well, im just trying to show that intent is a grey area.

2. Also intending to do good can backfire. For instance hypothetically speaking, A man has found out his wife is cheating on him, you have discovered that he plans to beat her. Intending to do good by stopping him, you accidentily stop him by knocking him out howeer he sustains brain injuries and is in a coma for the rest of his life. Then whilst going through his belongings the wife discovers his research, and that he was on the verge of curing cancer, no one can work out what he was going to do next and so his secret stays with him. Three months later his wife dies from cancer. I know this is far fetched but it only serves as a metaphore to highloght a point. We cant know everything, and when we act without knowing everything then we encounter consequences, if tha man had beaten his wife, she would have a black eye but still be alive and countless other lives would be saved. With out intending it we have caused a huge amount of harm.

I would like to point out that if i were in that situation then obviously i would try to stop the man from beating his wife. We cant know everything, but if we never acted then the world would fall apart. Im just trying to show that intent whilst a noble idea, can't really be used as a moral stnadpoint.

Just my thoughts feel free to rip them apart.

BB

Simon

edit* After reading this i fear i have stepped slightly of topic and managed a rather large post that isn't easy to digest all at once sorry but have fun reading anyway.

Look at it the other way around. A scientist decides to kill the population of a city (because he's a fun guy like that) so he puts a poison into the water. Unfortunately (or fortunately, actually) he's not a very good scientist, and his poison does not have the desired affect. It, infact, has no effect on the healthy, but cures cancer.

Whilst the effect was good and saved many lives, can you really call the scientist a good person for trying to poison everyone? Regardless of the outcome, the action of trying to poison the water was bad in itself.

So in your example, stopping the man from beating his wife is a good action in itself. What happens as a result is irrelevant to the morality of the action in question.

Therefore, I would say that morality can be used as a moral standpoint. Unless, that is, you are a consequentialist.

Ahhh i love a good debate, gets the blood flowing. Problem is this is all i will be able to think about tonight at work, and im ment to be traing poeple tonight as well, bless em they wont have a clue by the time im finished,

And Aoife i base my ethics very roughly (and i emphasise very) around a utilitarian idea. Maybe thats why i like to make people laugh.

Come on someone argue with me lol

Lizzy i think what you are saying is that you can't judge some one by the outcome of thier actions, but by thier actions themselves or the intent behind them. (correct me if i am wrong) This is well and good, but when we are trying to establish the thoughts behind 'Do no harm' i think the outcome is more important than the intent. So that without incredible forethought good intentions can still viloate that rule. Which is why i think it is traditional to perform some sort of divination before casting any spells e.t.c.

I totally agree with your points in theory, but only in theory. In practice it is impossible to know the outcomes of your actions (even using divination sometimes!), so no actual descisions can be made. Without total omniscience, actions cannot be soundly based on their outcomes, and surely a theory like this that cannot be put into practise is useless? Utilitarian principles can be a guide, but at some point you must make a judgement, and that judgement may sometimes be wrong, but that doesn't mean that what you did was wrong.

As for 'Harm none' I believe this is a target to aim for (as are most mopral guide lines, ie - ten commandments in christianity. 10 solid laws to follow, but humans are expected to slip up every now and again, hence to whole idea of forgiveness and confession of sins. ). No-one expects any person to go through life doing exactly the right thing in every situation, only to do their best to do what is right according to their judgement. This allows for unexpected, and possibley negative results.

Another point to consider is the chain of causation. You could claim that if the man had not been about to beat his wife, then you would not have hit him, so he bought it on himself. In that sense, his injuries were the consequences of his actions, and you were just another link in the chain. Then, of course, it could transpire that he had had a traumatic childhood that left him with a propensity towards violence. If you only look at outcomes, then actions become little more than links in a chain, and human descisions become irrelevant. In fact if you follow the chain of causation back, then everything was caused by the exact conditions at the start of our universe (the big bang or whatever else) and you are left with Determinism, where no one has any free will, and all moral systems become totally irrelevant.

Because I am a strong beleiver in free-will, I think it is more important to look at the actions of a person. 'Harm None' is, IMHO, a moral guideline, not a rule. It cannot be an absolute rule, because in some situations there is no option that will cause absolutely no harm, and one must simpley select the lesser of two evils.

(Wooo! I love debating, especially when I find someone who has the slightest idea of what I'm on about! )

LMAO! I love debating, and i follow EVERYTHING your saying! Which i'm impressed at on my part, lol. Although, my knowledge and philsophy arent quite adequate to add anything to what you philosophers have been debating about, so ill just go....DO CONTINUE! =]